Back
1999 Supreme(All) 464
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J.
RAM SWARUP AND RAM DASS - Appellant
Versus
BOARD OF REVENUE, ALLAHABAD - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 11202 Of 1982
Decided On : 04/08/1999
SATYA PRAKASH
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has no power of review unless expressly or impliedly vested in him by the Act, and a party is not bound by a compromise decree if he was not a party to the proceedings.
Headnote:
CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ACT - SECTION 189 - SECTION 49 - REVIEW APPLICATION - JURISDICTION - ESTOPPEL - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the orders of the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, which allowed the respondent's suit under Section 229b of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act) and set aside the compromise decree in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that the suit was barred by Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (Act) and that the respondent was estopped from challenging the compromise decree due to his earlier statement before the Consolidation Officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction to entertain the review application filed by Smt. Ram Dulari after the notification under Section 52 of the Act, and that the order of remand was therefore without jurisdiction and nullity. The court also held that the respondent was not bound by the compromise decree as he was not a party to the consolidation proceedings and that the principle of estoppel did not apply against him.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was barred by Section 49 of the Act? 2. Whether the respondent was estopped from challenging the compromise decree?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 189 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act extinguishes the interest of a bhumidhar with transferable rights in his holding when he transfers or lets out the holding in contravention of the provisions of the Act. 2. The Deputy Director of Consolidation exercises quasi-judicial powers and has no power of review unless expressly or impliedly vested in him by the Act. 3. A party is not bound by a compromise decree if he was not a party to the proceedings and the principle of estoppel does not apply against him.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of in dia has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 31. 8. 1981 [annexure-2 to the petition) passed by the additional Commissioner. Bareilly Division, Bareilly and order dated 9. 7. 1982 (Annexure-3 to the petition) passed by the Board of Revenue and further for relief of writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to interfere in the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute on the basis of the Impugned orders of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 or on any other basis.
( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present writ petition as stated by the petitioners are that plot No. 198 measuring 3. 25 acres of village Naugawan. Pargana Pooranpur district Pillibhlt was recorded in the basic year khatauni at the time of consolidation in the name of Raghubir Sahal. One Smt. Ram Dulari filed an objection under Section 9a of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming l/3rd share in the said plot on the basis of the family pedigree. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection of Smt. Ram Dulari. She preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was dismissed on 1. 3. 1968, thereafter, the revision filed by her was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of consolidation on 26. 4. 1968 and notification under Section 52 of the Act was made on 16. 8. 1969. Raghubir transferred the holding in suit on 26. 8. 1969 in favour of Data Ram, father of respondent Nos. 3 to 7. Then she filed a review application before the Deputy Director of consolidation which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 4. 12. 1969 and the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for deciding it afresh on merit.
( 3 ) IT is stated that when the matter reached to the Consolidation Officer. Data Ram, father of respondent Nos. 3 to 7 filed application for impalement, claiming that Raghubir Sahal had sold the land in dispute to him on 26. 8. 1969, therefore, he should be Impleaded. Petitioners contention is that the parties entered into compromise before the Consolidation Officer for deciding the case in terms of the compromise and before the Consolidation Officer, Data Ram, father of the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 made a statement that as there has been a compromise in the case between Smt. Ram Dulari and Raghubir Sahai, therefore, he does not want to say anything and his application for impalement may be rejected. Accordingly, on the basis of the compromise dated 11. 5. 1970, Smt. Ram Dulari was given l/3rd share and this order became final, then Smt- Ram Dulari executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioners on 25. 6. 1971 and since then, the petitioners are in continuous possession, it is further stated that as Data Ram had threatened the petitioners to take possession of the land in dispute, therefore, the proceedings under Section 145. Cr. P. C, were started and that was decided in favour of the petitioners and land in dispute was released in favour of the petitioners.
( 4 ) THE petitioners have alleged that Data Ram, father of the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 filed a suit under Section 229b of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. (hereinafter referred to as the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act) but it was dismissed as withdrawn on 4. 5. 1974, then Data Ram again filed a Suit No. 21 of 1978-79 under Section 229b/209 of U. P. Z. A, and L. R. Act which was dismissed on 18. 10. 1979 by the trial court. An appeal was filed by Data Ram against the judgment passed by the trial court and during the pendency of the appeal, he died and his heirs, respondent Nos. 3 to 7 were substituted. The appeal was allowed by the Additional commissioner on 31. 8. 1981. The petitioner filed a Second Appeal against the judgment of the additional Commissioner, which was dismissed on 9. 7. 1982. The petitioners have challenged these two Judgments by way of the present writ petition.
(
